DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 4:
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In this case, claim 4 requires that for each pair of consecutively performed first and second deposits, the corresponding second voxel space does not adjoin the corresponding first voxel space, which falls within the scope of claim 3, wherein consecutively ordered discrete deposits are at locations corresponding to non-adjacent voxel spaces.
Claim 7:
is objected to because of the following informalities: “a computer program code segment…by a computer, to identifies” in lines 6 should be “a computer program code segment…by a computer, [[to]] identifies”
Claim 10:
is objected to because of the following informalities: “to perform discrete deposits at least a set of locations corresponding to the required subset of voxels” in lines 15-16 should recite “to perform discrete deposits at least [[a set of]]at locations corresponding to the required subset of voxels” so as to match the recitation of “performing discrete deposits of feedstock material at least at locations that correspond to the required subset of voxel spaces” in lines 8-10 of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1:
the limitation “tool path computing application” is being interpreted as a controller (including software), and equivalents thereof.
[para. 0024: “The controller 36 can include native software that can provide instructions to the welding machine 22 and the articulated robot 26 based upon an input from a user (via a control panel or a computer model). In one embodiment, the controller 36 can be a general-purpose computer but, in other embodiments, the controller 36 can be any of a variety of suitable alternative controller arrangements for controlling the welding process and operation of the articulated robot 26.”]
[para. 0045: “First, a computer model of a final part is provided to the controller 36, which identifies the overall shape and size of the metal component that should be fabricated to ensure the final part can be milled or otherwise processed therefrom… The datum identified by the controller 36 can be used during the milling process to identify the metal component on the weld plate 38 more easily than with conventional datums (i.e., datums that are integrated into the component itself) which can save significant time and cost.”]
[para. 0050: “Examples of the software and techniques utilized by the controller 36 are discussed further below. Additionally, an advantageous manner for providing an 'as-deposited' model of the blank to a subsequent process that calculates machining tool paths is presented in FIG. 35.”].
the limitation “material-removal tool” is being interpreted as a CNC milling or turning machine, and equivalents thereof
[para. 0045: “For example, the post-process machining of a blank may be handled by a CNC milling or turning machine.”].
Claim 8:
the limitation “material-removal tool” is being interpreted as a CNC milling or turning machine, and equivalents thereof
[see claim interpretation of material-removal tool in claim 1, above].
Claim 11:
the limitation “material-removal tool” is being interpreted as a CNC milling or turning machine, and equivalents thereof
[see claim interpretation of material-removal tool in claim 1, above].
Claim 12:
the limitation “material-removal system” is being interpreted as a CNC milling or turning machine, and equivalents thereof
[para. 0045: “For example, the post-process machining of a blank may be handled by a CNC milling or turning machine.”].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1:
the term “concatenation” in lines 11-12 [“constructing a second digital data model representing a concatenation of the outer shapes of at least the voxel spaces in the required subset of voxel spaces;”] is used by the claim to mean that the second digital data model is an ‘as-deposited’ model, representing the voxels chosen to correspond to deposits forming the blank in an additive process, wherein the concatenation of (i.e., combination of or the collective formation of) the outer shape of each of these voxels describes the shape of the blank formed by the additive process.
[paras. 0174-175]
[claim 10, lines 17-18: “generates a second digital data model representing an alternative outer surface of the blank part that is collectively formed by the voxel boundaries of the required subset of voxels”]
Claim 1 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in claims 1-11, and col. 11, line 63-col. 16, line 16, in particular a cellular model as the second digital data model and a CAD or CAM package as the tool path computing application directing a CNC as the material-removal tool, and wherein the disclosure of U.S. 62/827,527 discloses it is known to
Claim 2:
Claim 2 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in col. 15, lines 15-29, and col. 17, lines 34-36.
Claim 3:
Claim 3 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in claim 1.
Claim 4:
Claim 4 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in claim 1.
Claim 5:
Claim 5 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in col. 12, lines 44-63, and col. 8, line 55-col. 9, line 3, in particular an average diameter (which corresponds to the nominal boundary radius R) defining each deposited cell (i.e., the discrete deposit) or cell in the cellular model (i.e., the voxel), wherein a distance between consecutive discrete deposits is shown to be a variable selected so as to allow proper cooling, enhance bonding, distribute heat, thereby reducing the likelihood of imperfections, wherein a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to discover an optimum value of the distance between the first and second deposit locations to be at least three times R since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 6:
Claim 6 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in col. 16, lines 4-16 and col. 14, line 3-12, in particular that the cellular model (i.e., second digital data model) may be adjusted such that the printed blank has an extra padding layer, wherein the model is exported to the CAD or CAM package (i.e., the tool path computing application) for generating motion instructions for the CNC (i.e., the material-removal tool), wherein the blank can have between 5 to 40% removed by machining, wherein a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to adjust the number of passes of the CNC depending on a variety of factors, e.g., tool geometry (including tool dimensions), surface geometry (i.e., increased padding layers), processing time, chip size, material properties (e.g., hardness), cooling, etc.
Claim 7:
the terms “non-transitory computer-readable element” in line 1 and “computer code segment” in lines 2, 4, 7, and 10 [“A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising: a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer…”] is used by the claim to mean software and firmware code stored on, e.g., magnetic or optical storage, to be executed by programmable equipment, e.g., computers or processors.
[para. 0015-16]
[para. 0127]
the term “concatenation” in line 11 [“generates a second digital data model as a concatenation of all voxel spaces in the subset”] is used by the claim to mean that the second digital data model is an ‘as-deposited’ model, representing the voxels chosen to correspond to deposits forming the blank in an additive process, wherein the concatenation (i.e., combination) of the outer shape of each of these voxels describes the shape of the blank formed by the additive process.
[see claim interpretation of concatenation in claim 1, above]
Claim 7 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in claims 1-11, and col. 11, line 63-col. 16, line 16, in particular software utilized by a controller (as the computer program code segment and computer), receiving a computer model of a part, creating a subset of cells (as the subset of the voxel spaces), and a cellular model as the second digital data model.
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in claims 1-11, and col. 11, line 63-col. 16, line 16, in particular a CAD or CAM package as the directing a CNC as the material-removal tool.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in col. 16, lines 4-16 and col. 14, line 3-62, in particular that the cellular model (i.e., second digital data model) may be adjusted such that the printed blank has an extra padding layer, wherein the model is exported to the CAD or CAM package (i.e., the tool path computing application) for generating motion instructions for the CNC (i.e., the material-removal tool), wherein the blank can have between 5 to 40% removed by machining, wherein portions of the blank may be machined while other portions may not be altered, and wherein a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to adjust the number of passes of the CNC depending on a variety of factors, e.g., tool geometry (including tool dimensions), surface geometry (i.e., increased padding layers), processing time, chip size, material properties (e.g., hardness), cooling, etc.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in claims 1-11, and col. 11, line 63-col. 16, line 16, in particular an articulated robot as the first motion system, a weld gun as the depositing component, software utilized by a controller (as the computer application and computer processor), receiving a computer model of a part, creating a subset of cells (as the subset of the voxel spaces), and a cellular model as the second digital data model.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in claims 1-11, and col. 11, line 63-col. 16, line 16, in particular a CAD or CAM package directing a CNC as the material-removal system.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is granted the priority date of U.S. 62/827,527, filed 4/1/2019, and US 16/837,696, filed 4/1/2020. The limitations are described in the disclosure of US 11638965 B2, at least in claims 1-11, and col. 11, line 63-col. 16, line 16, in particular a CAD or CAM package directing the CNC with second motion instructions.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 contains subject matter (“wherein the at least one material-removal system operates within the build space of the additive manufacturing system”) that goes beyond what is disclosed in any parent, and therefore does not benefit from any parent filing date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1,
the limitation “a final version of the object” in line 19 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to be distinct from “a final version of the object” recited in line 16. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 19 as reciting “[[a]]the final version of the object”.
Regarding claim 7, which recites “a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer” in line 2,
the limitations “a computer program code segment” in lines 4, 7, and 10 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether these limitations are intended to be distinct from “a computer program code segment” recited in line 2. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret lines 4, 7, and 10 as reciting “[[a]]the computer program code segment”.
the limitations “a computer” in lines 4, 7, and 10 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether these limitations are intended to be distinct from “a computer” recited in line 2. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret lines 4, 7, and 10 as reciting “[[a]]the computer”.
Regarding claim 8,
the limitations “a computer program code segment” in lines 2 and 6 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether these limitations are intended to be distinct from “a computer program code segment” recited in line 2, claim 7. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 8 as reciting “[[a]]the computer program code segment”.
the limitations “a computer” in lines 2 and 6 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether these limitations are intended to be distinct from “a computer” recited in line 2, claim 7. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 8 as reciting “[[a]]the computer”.
Regarding claim 12,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second motion instructions” in line 2. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 12 as referring to the “second motion instructions” in claim 11, line 2.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, and 13 are rejected because of dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor (US 20190361426 A1) in view of Versluys (US 20170197249 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Connor discloses:
A process for forming a three-dimensional object [method 10 forming a target part with additive and subtractive toolpaths; fig. 1; para. 0014: “A method 10 for facilitating part fabrication (e.g., via automated toolpath generation) preferably includes (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1): receiving a virtual part S100; modifying the virtual part S200; and determining toolpaths to fabricate the target part S300. The method 10 can additionally or alternatively include: generating machine instructions based on the toolpaths S400; fabricating the target part based on the machine instructions S500; calibrating the fabrication system S600; and/or any other suitable elements.”; para. 0036] within a build space [i.e., a stage of the fabrication system; para. 0027] from at least one feedstock material [e.g., metal; para. 0020] and according to a first digital data model describing at least the object's outer surface [i.e., input files describing the virtual part; para. 0018], comprising:
defining an array of [i.e., dividing the part to be built into any suitable array of additive volumes in three dimensions, wherein the dividing may include slicing the part horizontally and vertically; paras. 0038-39: “Determining additive toolpaths S320 preferably functions to generate material deposition toolpaths (e.g., corresponding to the oversize part). S320 preferably includes determining additive volumes (e.g., additive slices) and determining additive toolpaths for each volume... Determining additive volumes preferably includes slicing the part (e.g., the oversize part) horizontally, but can additionally or alternatively include slicing the part vertically and/or at an oblique angle (e.g., to the vertical axis), defining volumes with non-planar boundaries, and/or separating the part into any other suitable volumes…”];
identifying a required subset of object's outer surface according to the first digital data model [i.e., the additive toolpaths that correspond to material deposition toolpaths; para. 0038];
using an additive process to build a blank version of the object [i.e., the oversized part being a scaled up version of the part so as to allow for consistent material removal during subtractive fabrication; para. 0029] by performing discrete deposits of feedstock material at least at locations that correspond to the required subset of [i.e., material is deposited according to the material deposition toolpaths corresponding to the oversize part; para. 0038];
constructing a second digital data model [i.e., subtractive volumes corresponding to the subtractive toolpaths] representing a concatenation of the outer shapes of at least the [para. 0059: “The subtractive volumes (e.g., subtractive slices) are preferably horizontal slices and/or slices parallel to the additive slices, but can alternatively include any other suitable slices and/or other volumes (e.g., volumes such as described above regarding S320). The subtractive volumes can be the same as or different from the additive volumes. The subtractive volumes are preferably a set of volumes that collectively span the entire part and/or the entire surface of the part (e.g., of the target part, oversize part, etc.). The subtractive volumes can be mutually non-overlapping or substantially mutually non-overlapping, can have some overlap (e.g., to provide for smooth transitions between volumes, to ensure full coverage of the fabricated part surfaces by the subtractive toolpaths, etc.). In some embodiments, all or some subtractive volumes can be interleaved into additive volumes (e.g., by employing tool avoidance techniques). The subtractive volumes can optionally be defined based on the cutting tool and/or part geometry ( e.g., wherein a subtractive volumes corresponds to a single cutting tool pass of a waterline contour path), but can additionally or alternatively be determined based on any other suitable information.”];
providing the first digital data model and the second digital data model [i.e., the virtual part representing the target part desired, and the subtractive volume, wherein the target part would obviously define at least depth limits for any subtractive cutting process] as input to a tool path computing application [i.e., suitable software tools; para. 0082: “All or some of S330 (e.g., subtractive toolpath generation) can optionally be performed using standard CAM software tools (e.g., Freesteel, MasterCAM, CAMWorks, etc.), modified versions thereof, and/or any other suitable software tools.”], wherein the tool path computing application produces a list of motion instructions [i.e., subtractive toolpaths] to direct a material-removal tool [i.e., a cutting tool; para. 0058] to remove material from the blank version of the object to yield a final version of the object [i.e., the final fabricated part] in accordance with the first digital data model [i.e., forming the target part from the oversize part; para. 0052: “Determining and interspersing subtractive toolpaths S330 preferably functions to generate subtractive toolpaths for fabricating the target part (e.g., from the oversize part or portions thereof, in cooperation with the additive toolpaths, etc.). The subtractive toolpaths can include toolpaths corresponding to internal part surfaces (e.g., interfaces of the final fabricated part, such as the interface between two adjacent additive layers), external part surfaces ( e.g., exposed surfaces of the final fabricated part), and/or any other suitable subtractive toolpaths.”]; and
outputting the motion instructions to move the material-removal tool to remove material from the blank version of the object until a final version of the object [i.e., the final fabricated part] is formed in accordance with the first digital data model [fig. 1: S500].
However, although Connor discloses that the build space can be divided horizontally and vertically into suitable volumes [paras. 0038-39], and that each slice may comprise multiple discrete additive toolpaths in the same plane [para. 0040], wherein each additive toolpath corresponds to a discrete deposition event, Connor does not disclose dividing the slice into voxels, specifically, Connor does not explicitly disclose:
defining an array of voxel spaces spatially dividing the build space in three dimensions;
identifying a required subset of voxel spaces in the array that must be occupied by the feedstock material such that feedstock material is present at all points along the object's outer surface according to the first digital data model;
using an additive process to build a blank version of the object by performing discrete deposits of feedstock material at least at locations that correspond to the required subset of voxel spaces;
constructing a second digital data model representing a concatenation of the outer shapes of at least the voxel spaces in the required subset of voxel spaces;
Versluys, in the same field of endeavor, teaches it is known to further divide slices [i.e., layers] of a build space into a plurality of hexagonal sections [i.e., an array of voxel spaces; para. 0015: “With reference to the figures, FIG. 1. is a schematic depiction of a typical example of a section pattern 10 for an additive manufacturing process. As shown in FIG. 1, a portion 12 of a layer for additive manufacturing fabrication is divided into a plurality of hexagonal sections divided by section boundaries 14. The particular shapes (i.e., hexagonal) of the individual sections is of course merely illustrative, and many other shapes can be utilized as well. Examples of section shapes include shapes for both regular tessellated geometric patterns (e.g., hexagons, squares, triangles, large octagons combined with small squares), and irregular patterns with either linear or non-linear section boundaries.”],
wherein a subset of sections is identified corresponding to the article being manufactured [i.e., such that material is present at all points along the object’s outer surface; para. 0016-17: “As disclosed above, a plurality of patterns of scanning sections is determined according to criteria specified for the article being manufactured”]
and wherein each individual section corresponds to a location of a direct deposit of feedstock material [para. 0015: “The whole sections in FIG. 1 (i.e., those not cut off by the arbitrary border of the depicted portion 12) are numbered 1 through 11. These numbers represent an example of an embodiment of an order in which the sections are subjected to scanning (e.g., raster scanning) by an energy beam for fusion of fusible material.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the process of Connor, by dividing the build space using voxels wherein each voxel corresponds to a discrete deposit of material, such that the array is of voxel spaces spatially dividing the build space in three dimensions, wherein the required subset is of voxel spaces, wherein the locations correspond to the required subset of voxel spaces, and wherein the second digital model represents the outer shapes of at least the voxel spaces in the required subset of voxel spaces, since Versluys teaches this allows for a physical separation between ordered sections of discrete deposits during deposition to promote resistance to deformation [para. 0004: “In order to reduce deformation of the layers from thermal or chemical reaction kinetics effects, each layer is often scanned in discrete sections at separate locations along the layer.”; para. 0015: “In some embodiments, a physical separation between ordered sections in the scanning sequence as shown in FIG. 1 can promote resistance to deformation from thermal or densification effects encountered in melting or sintering processes, or reaction kinetic effects encountered in stereolithographic processes.”].
Regarding claim 2, Connor in view of Versluys discloses the process of claim 1.
Connor further teaches:
wherein the spatially dividing of the build space along one of the three dimensions is defined by a build layer thickness [i.e., a thickness of a slice may be equal to a thickness of a deposition; para. 0039: “The slices preferably have equal thicknesses (e.g., equal to the deposition layer thickness, preferably accounting for additional material in the deposited layer that can be removed by subtractive machining, such as an additional 5-150 μm),”] and wherein the performing of discrete deposits comprises depositing a unitary mass of feedstock material having a dimension corresponding to the build layer thickness [i.e.: a singular mass of material deposited in a material deposition toolpath has a height corresponding to deposition layer thickness wherein the slice thickness or the deposition layer thickness can be dynamically changed (para. 0039); Connor also teaches that the dilation operation to form the oversize part may involve a height expansion constant/a width expansion constant related to, e.g., the deposition layer thickness/deposition road width, paras. 0030-31)].
Regarding claim 3, Connor in view of Versluys discloses the process of claim 1.
Connor as modified by Versluys, specifically Versluys discloses:
wherein the discrete deposits of feedstock material are performed in a sequence arranged such that consecutively ordered discrete deposits are at locations corresponding to non-adjacent voxel spaces [i.e., the physical separation between the ordered sections; paras. 0004, 0015].
Regarding claim 4, Connor in view of Versluys discloses the process of claim 1.
Connor as modified by Versluys, specifically Versluys discloses:
wherein the discrete deposits of feedstock material are performed in a sequence arranged such that, for each pair of consecutively performed first and second deposit locations corresponding to first and second voxel spaces, the second voxel space does not adjoin the first voxel space [i.e., the physical separation between the ordered sections; paras. 0004, 0015].
Regarding claim 5, Connor in view of Versluys discloses the process of claim 1.
Connor as modified by Versluys, specifically Versluys discloses:
wherein a vicinity for each voxel space is defined by a nominal boundary radius 'R' and, for each pair of consecutively performed first and second deposit locations, a distance between the first and second deposit locations is at least three times R [see fig. 1, showing a center of a first deposit location 1 being at least three times a radius thereof away from a center of a second deposit location 2].
Furthermore, in view of Versluys teaching that a height of the voxel (which corresponds to a radius R of the voxel) is dynamically changeable, and that a physical separation between ordered sections is selected so as to promote resistance to deformation from thermal effects encountered in melting processes, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to discover an optimum value of separation such that a distance between consecutive deposits is at least three times R, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Connor in view of Versluys discloses the process of claim 1.
Connor further discloses:
wherein at least one portion of the second digital data model extends beyond the first digital data model by greater than a maximum depth-of-cut dimension of the material-removal tool and wherein the motion instructions comprise multiple passes by the material-removal tool to remove the portion [e.g., multiple passes of a tool to achieve a high quality surface finish, wherein the subtractive toolpath may comprise a roughing toolpath (as a first pass, having a depth of cut less than the full extension/padding of the oversize portion to have the high quality surface finish) and a finishing toolpath (as a second pass, also having a depth of cut less than the full extension/padding); para. 0057; para. 0084: “…then machining the deposited material to achieve the desired dimensions and/or surface finish; resetting the layer by removing the defective layer (or a portion thereof), such as by facing, and then re-fabricating the removed portion, such as by repeating the additive and/or subtractive toolpaths associated with the layer; etc.).”].
Regarding claim 7,
Connor discloses:s
A non-transitory computer-readable medium [para. 0091: “Furthermore, various processes of the preferred method can be embodied and/or implemented at least in part as a machine configured to receive a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions.”; para. 0023: “The system 20 preferably includes one or more computing systems ( e.g., configured to communicate with and/or control operation of the fabrication systems, etc.). The computing systems can include computing devices integrated with ( e.g., embedded in, directly connected to, etc.) the fabrication system(s ), user devices ( e.g., smart phone, tablet, laptop and/or desktop computer, etc.), remote servers (e.g., internet-connected servers, such as those hosted by a toolpath generation service provider and/or fabrication system manufacturer), and/or any other suitable computing systems.”] comprising:
a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer, receives a first digital data model describing an object's outer surface in three dimensions [i.e., input files describing a virtual part to form a target part with additive and subtractive toolpaths; fig. 1; paras. 0014, 0018, 0036];
a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer, compares the first digital data model to a three-dimensional array of [i.e., dividing the part to be built into any suitable array of additive volumes in three dimensions, wherein the dividing may include slicing the part horizontally and vertically; paras. 0038-39: “Determining additive toolpaths S320 preferably functions to generate material deposition toolpaths (e.g., corresponding to the oversize part). S320 preferably includes determining additive volumes (e.g., additive slices) and determining additive toolpaths for each volume... Determining additive volumes preferably includes slicing the part (e.g., the oversize part) horizontally, but can additionally or alternatively include slicing the part vertically and/or at an oblique angle (e.g., to the vertical axis), defining volumes with non-planar boundaries, and/or separating the part into any other suitable volumes…”];
a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer, to identifies, from the array of [i.e., the additive toolpaths that correspond to material deposition toolpaths; para. 0038];
a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer, generates a second digital data model [i.e., subtractive volumes corresponding to the subtractive toolpaths] as a concatenation of all [para. 0059: “The subtractive volumes (e.g., subtractive slices) are preferably horizontal slices and/or slices parallel to the additive slices, but can alternatively include any other suitable slices and/or other volumes (e.g., volumes such as described above regarding S320). The subtractive volumes can be the same as or different from the additive volumes. The subtractive volumes are preferably a set of volumes that collectively span the entire part and/or the entire surface of the part (e.g., of the target part, oversize part, etc.). The subtractive volumes can be mutually non-overlapping or substantially mutually non-overlapping, can have some overlap (e.g., to provide for smooth transitions between volumes, to ensure full coverage of the fabricated part surfaces by the subtractive toolpaths, etc.). In some embodiments, all or some subtractive volumes can be interleaved into additive volumes (e.g., by employing tool avoidance techniques). The subtractive volumes can optionally be defined based on the cutting tool and/or part geometry ( e.g., wherein a subtractive volumes corresponds to a single cutting tool pass of a waterline contour path), but can additionally or alternatively be determined based on any other suitable information.”].
However, although Connor discloses that the volume (i.e., build space) can be divided horizontally and vertically into suitable volumes [paras. 0038-39], and that each slice may comprise multiple discrete additive toolpaths in the same plane [para. 0040], wherein each additive toolpath corresponds to a discrete deposition event, Connor does not disclose dividing the slice into voxels, specifically, Connor does not explicitly disclose:
a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer, compares the first digital data model to a three-dimensional array of voxel spaces that subdivide a space encompassing the object's shape;
a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer, to identifies, from the array of voxel spaces, a subset of the voxel spaces required to fully occupy a volume bounded by the object's outer shape;
a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer, generates a second digital data model as a concatenation of all voxel spaces in the subset.
Versluys, in the same field of endeavor, teaches it is known to further divide slices [i.e., layers] of a build space into a plurality of hexagonal sections [i.e., an array of voxel spaces; para. 0015: “With reference to the figures, FIG. 1. is a schematic depiction of a typical example of a section pattern 10 for an additive manufacturing process. As shown in FIG. 1, a portion 12 of a layer for additive manufacturing fabrication is divided into a plurality of hexagonal sections divided by section boundaries 14. The particular shapes (i.e., hexagonal) of the individual sections is of course merely illustrative, and many other shapes can be utilized as well. Examples of section shapes include shapes for both regular tessellated geometric patterns (e.g., hexagons, squares, triangles, large octagons combined with small squares), and irregular patterns with either linear or non-linear section boundaries.”],
wherein a subset of sections is identified corresponding to the article being manufactured [i.e., such that material is present at all points along the object’s outer surface; para. 0016-17: “As disclosed above, a plurality of patterns of scanning sections is determined according to criteria specified for the article being manufactured”]
and wherein each individual section corresponds to a location of a direct deposit of feedstock material [para. 0015: “The whole sections in FIG. 1 (i.e., those not cut off by the arbitrary border of the depicted portion 12) are numbered 1 through 11. These numbers represent an example of an embodiment of an order in which the sections are subjected to scanning (e.g., raster scanning) by an energy beam for fusion of fusible material.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the medium of Connor, by dividing the build space using voxels wherein each voxel corresponds to a discrete deposit of material, such that the three-dimensional array is of voxel spaces, wherein the subset of spaces is from the array of voxel spaces, and wherein the second digital data model is a concatenation of all voxel spaces in the subset, since Versluys teaches this allows for a physical separation between ordered sections of discrete deposits during deposition to promote resistance to deformation [para. 0004: “In order to reduce deformation of the layers from thermal or chemical reaction kinetics effects, each layer is often scanned in discrete sections at separate locations along the layer.”; para. 0015: “In some embodiments, a physical separation between ordered sections in the scanning sequence as shown in FIG. 1 can promote resistance to deformation from thermal or densification effects encountered in melting or sintering processes, or reaction kinetic effects encountered in stereolithographic processes.”].
Regarding claim 8, Connor in view of Versluys discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7.
Connor further discloses:
the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7 further comprising:
a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer, compares the second digital data model to the first digital data model [i.e., the virtual part representing the target part desired, and the subtractive volume, wherein the target part would obviously define at least depth limits for any subtractive cutting process] to identify where the second digital data model indicates excess volumes [i.e., the extra padding provided by the ] beyond the object's shape according to the first digital data model [i.e., wherein the oversized part (being a scaled up version of the part so as to allow for consistent material removal during subtractive fabrication) is compared to the target part so as to form subtractive toolpaths; paras. 0029, 0059]; and
a computer program code segment that, when executed by a computer, generates and outputs motion instructions [i.e., subtractive toolpaths] to guide a material removing tool [i.e., a cutting tool; para. 0058] to selectively remove excessive material from a blank part [i.e., the oversize part], that resembles the second digital model, to form a final part conforming to the first digital data model [i.e., forming the target part from the oversize part; para. 0052: “Determining and interspersing subtractive toolpaths S330 preferably functions to generate subtractive toolpaths for fabricating the target part (e.g., from the oversize part or portions thereof, in cooperation with the additive toolpaths, etc.). The subtractive toolpaths can include toolpaths corresponding to internal part surfaces (e.g., interfaces of the final fabricated part, such as the interface between two adjacent additive layers), external part surfaces ( e.g., exposed surfaces of the final fabricated part), and/or any other suitable subtractive toolpaths.”].
Regarding claim 9, Connor in view of Versluys discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8.
Connor further discloses:
wherein the generating and outputting motion instructions further comprises detecting at least one portion of the second digital data model extending beyond the first digital data model by greater than a maximum depth of cut dimension of the material-removal tool and, responsively, including motion instructions, localized to the vicinity of the portion, providing for multiple passes by the material-removal tool to remove the portion [e.g., multiple passes of a tool to achieve a high quality surface finish, wherein the subtractive toolpath may comprise a roughing toolpath (as a first pass, having a depth of cut less than the full extension/padding of the oversize portion to have the high quality surface finish) and a finishing toolpath (as a second pass, also having a depth of cut less than the full extension/padding); para. 0057; para. 0084: “…then machining the deposited material to achieve the desired dimensions and/or surface finish; resetting the layer by removing the defective layer (or a portion thereof), such as by facing, and then re-fabricating the removed portion, such as by repeating the additive and/or subtractive toolpaths associated with the layer; etc.).”].
Regarding claim 10,
Connor discloses:
A system for forming a three-dimensional object [method 10 forming a target part with additive and subtractive toolpaths; fig. 1; para. 0014: “A method 10 for facilitating part fabrication (e.g., via automated toolpath generation) preferably includes (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1): receiving a virtual part S100; modifying the virtual part S200; and determining toolpaths to fabricate the target part S300. The method 10 can additionally or alternatively include: generating machine instructions based on the toolpaths S400; fabricating the target part based on the machine instructions S500; calibrating the fabrication system S600; and/or any other suitable elements.”; para. 0036] within a build space [i.e., a stage of the fabrication system; para. 0027] from at least one feedstock material [e.g., metal; para. 0020] and according to a first digital data model describing at least the object's outer surface [i.e., input files describing the virtual part; para. 0018], comprising:
a non-continuous deposition additive manufacturing apparatus [i.e., a fabrication system (paras. 0019-20), wherein at least non-continuous layers of material are deposited] comprising:
at least one depositing component for performing discrete deposits of the feedstock material [i.e., a deposition mechanism, e.g., a needle or nozzle as a print material dispenser; para. 0019];
a first motion system coupled to the depositing component and operable to programmatically move the depositing component to locations within the build space [i.e., movement mechanisms; paras. 0019, 0022]; and
at least one computer application executing in a computer processor [para. 0091: “Furthermore, various processes of the preferred method can be embodied and/or implemented at least in part as a machine configured to receive a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions.”; para. 0023: “The system 20 preferably includes one or more computing systems ( e.g., configured to communicate with and/or control operation of the fabrication systems, etc.). The computing systems can include computing devices integrated with ( e.g., embedded in, directly connected to, etc.) the fabrication system(s ), user devices ( e.g., smart phone, tablet, laptop and/or desktop computer, etc.), remote servers (e.g., internet-connected servers, such as those hosted by a toolpath generation service provider and/or fabrication system manufacturer), and/or any other suitable computing systems.”] which:
aligns the first digital data model with an array of [i.e., dividing the part to be built into any suitable array of additive volumes in three dimensions, wherein the dividing may include slicing the part horizontally and vertically; paras. 0038-39: “Determining additive toolpaths S320 preferably functions to generate material deposition toolpaths (e.g., corresponding to the oversize part). S320 preferably includes determining additive volumes (e.g., additive slices) and determining additive toolpaths for each volume... Determining additive volumes preferably includes slicing the part (e.g., the oversize part) horizontally, but can additionally or alternatively include slicing the part vertically and/or at an oblique angle (e.g., to the vertical axis), defining volumes with non-planar boundaries, and/or separating the part into any other suitable volumes…”] and identifies a required subset of [i.e., the additive toolpaths that correspond to material deposition toolpaths; para. 0038] in forming a blank part [i.e., the oversized part being a scaled up version of the part so as to allow for consistent material removal during subtractive fabrication; para. 0029] so that feedstock material is present at all points along the object's outer surface according to the first digital data model [i.e., material is deposited according to the material deposition toolpaths corresponding to the oversize part; para. 0038];
generates first motion instructions for directing the non-continuous additive manufacturing apparatus to perform discrete deposits at least a set of locations corresponding to the required subset [i.e., additive volumes corresponding to the additive toolpaths]; and
generates a second digital data model representing an alternative outer surface of the blank part that is collectively formed by the subset [i.e., subtractive volumes corresponding to the subtractive toolpaths].
However, although Connor discloses that the build space can be divided horizontally and vertically into suitable volumes [paras. 0038-39], and that each slice may comprise multiple discrete additive toolpaths in the same plane [para. 0040], wherein each additive toolpath corresponds to a discrete deposition event, Connor does not disclose dividing the slice into voxels, specifically, Connor does not explicitly disclose the at least one computer application executing in the computer processor which:
aligns the first digital data model with an array of voxel spaces and identifies a required subset of voxel spaces in the array that must be occupied by the feedstock material in forming a blank part so that feedstock material is present at all points along the object's outer surface according to the first digital data model;
generates first motion instructions for directing the non-continuous additive manufacturing apparatus to perform discrete deposits at least a set of locations corresponding to the required subset of voxels; and
generates a second digital data model representing an alternative outer surface of the blank part that is collectively formed by the voxel boundaries of the required subset of voxels.
Versluys, in the same field of endeavor, teaches it is known to further divide slices [i.e., layers] of a build space into a plurality of hexagonal sections [i.e., an array of voxel spaces; para. 0015: “With reference to the figures, FIG. 1. is a schematic depiction of a typical example of a section pattern 10 for an additive manufacturing process. As shown in FIG. 1, a portion 12 of a layer for additive manufacturing fabrication is divided into a plurality of hexagonal sections divided by section boundaries 14. The particular shapes (i.e., hexagonal) of the individual sections is of course merely illustrative, and many other shapes can be utilized as well. Examples of section shapes include shapes for both regular tessellated geometric patterns (e.g., hexagons, squares, triangles, large octagons combined with small squares), and irregular patterns with either linear or non-linear section boundaries.”],
wherein a subset of sections is identified corresponding to the article being manufactured [i.e., such that material is present at all points along the object’s outer surface; para. 0016-17: “As disclosed above, a plurality of patterns of scanning sections is determined according to criteria specified for the article being manufactured”]
and wherein each individual section corresponds to a location of a direct deposit of feedstock material [para. 0015: “The whole sections in FIG. 1 (i.e., those not cut off by the arbitrary border of the depicted portion 12) are numbered 1 through 11. These numbers represent an example of an embodiment of an order in which the sections are subjected to scanning (e.g., raster scanning) by an energy beam for fusion of fusible material.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Connor, by dividing the build space using voxels wherein each voxel corresponds to a discrete deposit of material, such that the array is of voxel spaces, wherein the required subset is of voxel spaces, wherein the set of locations corresponds to the required subset of voxels, and wherein the second digital data model is collectively formed by the voxel boundaries of the required subset of voxels, since Versluys teaches this allows for a physical separation between ordered sections of discrete deposits during deposition to promote resistance to deformation [para. 0004: “In order to reduce deformation of the layers from thermal or chemical reaction kinetics effects, each layer is often scanned in discrete sections at separate locations along the layer.”; para. 0015: “In some embodiments, a physical separation between ordered sections in the scanning sequence as shown in FIG. 1 can promote resistance to deformation from thermal or densification effects encountered in melting or sintering processes, or reaction kinetic effects encountered in stereolithographic processes.”].
Regarding claim 11, Connor in view of Versluys discloses the system of claim 10.
Connor further discloses:
wherein the computer application compares the second digital data model to the first digital data model [i.e., the virtual part representing the target part desired, and the subtractive volume, wherein the target part would obviously define at least depth limits for any subtractive cutting process] and calculates second motion instructions [i.e., subtractive toolpaths] for controlling a material-removal tool [i.e., a cutting tool; para. 0058] to remove excess material from the blank part until a final version of the object [i.e., the final fabricated part] is formed in accordance with the first digital data model [i.e., forming the target part from the oversize part; para. 0052: “Determining and interspersing subtractive toolpaths S330 preferably functions to generate subtractive toolpaths for fabricating the target part (e.g., from the oversize part or portions thereof, in cooperation with the additive toolpaths, etc.). The subtractive toolpaths can include toolpaths corresponding to internal part surfaces (e.g., interfaces of the final fabricated part, such as the interface between two adjacent additive layers), external part surfaces ( e.g., exposed surfaces of the final fabricated part), and/or any other suitable subtractive toolpaths.”].
Regarding claim 12, Connor in view of Versluys discloses the system of claim 10.
Connor further discloses:
further comprising at least one material-removal system [i.e., a cutting tool; para. 0058] operable to act according to the second motion instructions [i.e., subtractive toolpaths] and to remove the excess material from the blank part [i.e., forming the target part from the oversize part; para. 0052: “Determining and interspersing subtractive toolpaths S330 preferably functions to generate subtractive toolpaths for fabricating the target part (e.g., from the oversize part or portions thereof, in cooperation with the additive toolpaths, etc.). The subtractive toolpaths can include toolpaths corresponding to internal part surfaces (e.g., interfaces of the final fabricated part, such as the interface between two adjacent additive layers), external part surfaces ( e.g., exposed surfaces of the final fabricated part), and/or any other suitable subtractive toolpaths.”].
Regarding claim 13, Connor in view of Versluys discloses the system of claim 12.
Connor further discloses:
wherein the at least one material-removal system operates within the build space of the additive manufacturing system [i.e., subtraction of material performed between additions of material, such that the subtractive tool operates in the same space as the additive tool; para. 0059: “In some embodiments, all or some subtractive volumes can be interleaved into additive volumes ( e.g., by employing tool avoidance techniques).”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761